|
Are foreign thoughts on the matter welcome?
From my (a Canadian) perspective, I do think it's important to have a health care system in place under the government. Effectively designed and run, such a system can actually save money over the long run, and more importantly, I think it's important to care for all our people. If higher taxes here in Canada mean that any of my fellow citizens can get the help they need for a medical emergency without fear of the costs and so forth, I am more than happy to pay that. This doesn't mean I believe in socialism to its extreme, mind you. There are a lot of social programs in Canada I disagree with. But I find health to be far too important not to have such a program in place. So really it isn't about whether or not the government should run things, it's about exactly how much they should run -- what is important enough that it should be under their control, and what is not so vital that it needs not such control.
Now then. To narrow my opinion down to specifically what happened in America I'm a bit more torn on it. I do think it's a good thing for the states that some form of health care passed, but I don't think passing this particular bill was a great idea. It will serve as a good start, yes, but surely it could have been improved such that at least a small majority (or at least a majority of those people who wanted health care at all) would have seen it more favourably. It's not impossible for this to have happened; polling from various sources showed that the majority of Americans wanted health care reform, but the majority of those who did want reform did not want this particular bill. Moreover, as the opening poster pointed out, the bill is incredibly long, not concise at all, filled with fluff from the negotiating process that was never really cleaned up and hammered out into something legible and clear.
Regarding the method by which it passed (reconciliation) however, it's an existing political process, and I hesitate to call it underhanded or unfair as some have, especially when the republicans used it just as readily during their times in government. If people are so opposed to it, then the argument should not be against how health care passed so much as it should be in favour of changing these rules for future generations. As long as it exists, parties will use it and feel right in doing so. (To be honest, the method by which the filibuster works down there always seemed rather odd and perhaps too powerful to me; if reconciliation were to change, so too must filibuster. But this is straying from the topic at hand.)
Now, I am aware that as someone who is not an American, my opinion holds no real sway as far as democratic process goes. Moreover, this is just opinion and conjecture; I do not mean that anyone should think like me, nor do I intend to say that the US should conform to a foreigner's thoughts on the world. I am aware that having lived where there is a health care system gives me a different perspective on this, but I think that might be a useful one to those exploring all sides of the issue.
I intend only to lay these thoughts out there, and those who really are affected by this (Americans) may use or disregard my thoughts as they will. I hope they are useful, of course.
|